Matthew Yglesias writes a post that, while a mere two sentences long, provides a clear window into what’s so worrisome about his faux-authoritative style. The post runs, in full:

I haven’t been following the situation in Zimbabwe super closely, but the fact that Desmond Tutu is weighing in and calling on Mugabe to step down seems noteworthy. Mugabe’s regime has clearly been getting a big boost over the years from loyalty that ANCers feel thanks to the help he gave them back when Mugabe’s western critics were mostly on the side of the apartheid government, so it means a lot as we see more and more of the key anti-apartheid leaders breaking with their old ally.

This is nothing new. Tutu has been lambasting Mugabe for years, and is one of the Zimbabwean dictator’s most relentless critics. That Yglesias thinks this latest plaint is “noteworthy” speaks to his utter ignorance of the issue. All that can be said in his defense is that he begins his child-wandering-into-a-movie wonderment with an acknowledgment that he hasn’t “been following the situation . . . super closely.” That disclaimer should introduce all of Yglesias’s posts–saving, perhaps, his thoughts on NBA draft picks.